Get the Desktop App for Battle.net Now
- All your games in 1 place
- Log in once
- Automatic game updates
When you say 'free-market capitalism' you mean lasseiz-faire capitalism...
I'm not going to argue semantics, economics, or politics with you in this manner, as no resolution would ever be reached. I was merely informing you that one of your critcisms of Objectivism and Ayn Rand has no basis in fact. Show me where, in any of her writings at all, that she says she rejects the notion of human beings cooperating.
Putting those things aside, when you consider the ideology of capitalism, your perceptions of the virtue of it's proponents also aside, as well as it's efficacy in practice, it requires and encourages the cooperation of individuals. This is irrefutable fact.
While I apologize for my rudeness before, I encourage you to look over your posts. They're filled with little but vitriol and metaphor, and little if any fact.
Baseless metaphor, posted with the intent to demagogue.
Meaningless ad hominem. It has no bearings on her works or their value, or lack thereof.
It's clear that you hate her as well as her philosophy as you understand it, but your hatred is not a valid argument against it.
I would love to have a rational debate with you on the philosophical aspects of capitalism or socialism, or whatever system you favor, if you're willing to debate at a level that is more befitting of your intelligence, rather than like an angry child.
Well, I don't see the distinction between the two, but I'll concede to that.
A meritocracy would exclude the many and reward the few, at least within the given field; is that an argument against it's morality or fairness? I think not. Either way, no one's being devoured, enough with the hyperbole.
This is ludicrous. You honestly believe that her objective in what she dedicated most of her life to was to soothe the consciences of the elite?
On the argument that lasseiz-faire capitalism does not reward cooperation, consider why civilization, which I think could be simply and accurately defined as a permanent state of cooperation between individuals, arose from complete anarchy? It's because cooperation produces superior results, and results are the only metric of success in business and industry, or at least in theory.
On regulation, I will admit, the moral and just course of action is hazy to say the least. Government is still responsible to protect people from being directly harmed by the actions of others; pollution is the least ambiguous issue that comes to mind, but there are an infinite number of things that can be argued to cause harm to others, so the question becomes; where do we draw the line?
There's also another problem with regulation, in that it tends to have the greatest negative impact on small business, which hurts competition, and aids the formation of monopolies, and that is not what capitalism is about, in my opinion at least.
I'm not saying it's a perfect system, as there is no such thing, but to decry it as a monstrously disgusting philosophy is, frankly, a bit silly.
Edited by Deathlust on 6/11/2011 12:54 PM PDT
Sorry, I deleted the rant because of moderation rules and it's not really what the OP wanted. Just google Ayn Rand and Feminism if your interested. I guess I should have just left the post alone :(.
Regarding her words on the matter, I'm only saying people don't fit into neat little boxes, Ayn can't just SAY a woman would be a miserable leader and make it so. I respect her opionian on most things, but see her as a stubborn, set in her way, old lady on others.
Edited by Lucca on 6/15/2011 2:35 PM PDT
I don't do this often but it gets right under my skin when people fail to understand Ayn Rand on a more essential and personal level. Rand's writing was called 'romantic realism'. Meaning writing which captured a sense of greatness and the scale of human endeavor. It's antithesis is more along the lines (I'm not necessarily epitomizing or vilifying anything here) of writing with the purpose of creating a sense of 'relation' to the reader. To put it another way, Rand created characters and ideals to aspire to for the reader versus characters that justify one's own real-life complacency. The argument that she created straw men for her enemies is wrong (and true of her heroes as well). Authors create what may seem to be weak or un-fleshed characters are actually extremes and essences instead, as opposed to characters of development or dimension so that their qualities are much more well represented.
Any parallel between Rand and sociopathic behavior may have been said of her before The Fountainhead and during her writing of We the Living. Rand took up largely after Nietzsche. It fails me at the moment but there's a line in We the Living that proves this: something to the effect of 'walking on bodies' I think. As for the amorality (Machiavelli is amoral) and ushering in an 'uncooperative society', this is not so. Ayn Rand thought of men as traders and thus as equals. I'm not here to discuss applicability and practicality (and certainly not politics - something that people seem to always arrive at when discussing Rand).
Ayn Rand certainly did not have an entitlement complex. Do not confuse pride with demand of others. She abhorred anything that even suggested the unearned. She was also not against giving, yet not in the way that would insinuate a lack of merit. Giving can also be a very selfish act: one that resonates one's own providence and also one of nobility (Aristotle). People can give charity as an act of good character. She even favored giving on one's own accord versus coercive action by the state (donation and taxation).
However the most important aspect of Rand is the individual and not the political context that people seem so eager to survey in regards to her philosophy. Rand valued pride, intellect and work ethic. I can't even fathom why anyone would criticize these fundamental standards or revile them. Pride is acknowledgement of ability, intellect is knowledge or its application and work is the acquisition or the refinement of life and it's sustenance.
Edited by Valtiel on 3/19/2012 4:14 PM PDT
@Tranquility many of those people you mentioned may have read her book but that hardly means they follow objectivism. They may pick bits and pieces out of her philosophy that they like but none of them follow her ideals. And where you copied that from is hardly a legitimate source.
Edited by Confederate on 6/22/2012 3:38 PM PDT
One of my favorite quotes ever:
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
Edited by Hannibal on 8/4/2012 11:46 AM PDT
Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.
Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.
Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.